INEFFECTUAL, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’...

Let us cast our minds back to those remarkable days in November 2008 when the son of a Kenyan goatherd was elected to the White House. It was a bright new dawn – even brighter than the coming of the Kennedys and their new Camelot. JFK may be considered as being from an ethnic and religious minority – Irish and Catholic – but he was still very rich and very white. Barack Obama, by contrast, was a true breakthrough president. The world would change because obviously America had changed.

Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?“ The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision. What should the US do about Libya? What should the US do about the Middle East in general? What about the country’s crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iran?

What is President Obama doing about anything? The most alarming answer – your guess is as good as mine – is also, frankly, the most accurate one. What the President is not doing is being clear, resolute and pro-active, which is surely a big part of his job description. This is what he has to say about the popular uprising in Libya: “Gaddafi must go.” At least, that was his position on March 3.

Since then, other countries – most notably Britain and France – have been calling for some kind of intervention. Even the Arab League, a notoriously conservative organisation, has declared support for sanctions. But from the White House has come only the blah-blah of bland statements filled with meaningless expressions and vague phrases. Of decisive action and leadership – even of clearlydefined opinion – there is precious little sign.

What is the Obama administration’s position on the protests in the Gulf island state of Bahrain, which the authorities there are savagely suppressing with the help of troops shipped in from Saudi Arabia? What is the White House view on the alarming prospect of the unrest spreading to Saudi Arabia itself? Who knows? Certainly not the American people, nor the leaders of nations which would consider themselves allies of America.

The President has not really shared his views, which leads us to conclude that he either doesn’t know or chooses, for reasons best known to himself, not to say. The result is that a very real opportunity to remove an unpredictable despot from power may well have been lost. Who knows when or if such an opportunity will come along again?

Every day for almost the last two months our television screens, radio broadcasts and the pages of our newspapers have been filled with the pictures, sounds and words of the most tumultuous events any of us can remember in the Arab world. The outcome of these events, once the dust has settled, could literally change the world. Yet Obama seems content to sit this one out. He has barely engaged in the debate. Such ostrich-like behaviour is not untypical of the 49-year-old President who burst through America’s colour barrier to become the first African-American to occupy the White House.

Two days after taking office in January 2009, he pledged to close down the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, which has become notorious for holding detainees for years without trial. Obama promised to lose the prison within 12 months and to abolish the practice of military trials of terrorism suspects. It was an important promise. America’s reputation had been severely tarnished by revelations about the conditions at Guantanamo, by reports of waterboarding and extraordinary rendition (transporting prisoners to a third country for torture) and by the appalling treatment of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Closing Guantanamo was a redemptive gesture. Two years on, not only is the prison still in use but its future is as assured as ever. Ten days ago, the President signed an executive order reinstating the military commissions at the island prison. Human rights organisations were outraged. “With the stroke of a pen, President Obama extinguished any lingering hope that his administration would return the United States to the rule of law,” said Amnesty International while Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, declared the President’s action to be “unlawful, unwise and un-American.”

White House spokesmen insisted the President was still committed to closing Guantanamo, which currently has 172 detainees in custody. It was Congress, they said, that had refused to sanction the transfer of the prisoners to the US mainland for trial, leaving no option but to keep the prison open in Cuba. Very little has been achieved in the quest to secure peace in the Middle East. Under Obama, US foreign policy is founded on extreme caution. At first this cool-headedness was a welcome change from the naked aggression of George W Bush and his henchmen Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

It is also true that the President is constantly stymied by a hostile, Republican-ruled Congress. But Obama’s apparent reluctance to engage with momentous events is starting to look like more than aloofness. Some tempering of America’s role as the world’s No1 busybody may be no bad thing but under Obama the US appears to be heading towards isolationism. He is hardly doing much better at home. Economically, the US is in big trouble but the national debt is not shrinking.

Ditto the country’s ecological health; the American love affair with the car and oil remains undiminished despite any alleged commitment. But the White House appears to shy away from any tough action. The energy with which Obama entered the White House seems to have all gone in the push to bring in health care reform, which many Americans didn’t want (or still don’t realise they want).

All of which means that it is starting to look as if Obama and the Democratic Party have but one aim in mind for the rest of this presidential term: to get elected for a second. That means not doing anything that might upset any number of special interest or niche groups, which in effect means not doing very much at all. So, not too many harsh but necessary measures to tackle the financial deficit; no clear direction on where America goes with Afghanistan, even though the war there is going nowhere except from bad to worse.

The Obama government can’t even give clear direction on whether the American people are in danger of exposure to nuclear fallout from Japan following the devastating earthquake and tsunami. The US Surgeon General Regina Benjamin advised San Francisco residents to stock up on radiation antidotes, prompting a run on potassium iodide pills, while the President said experts had assured him that any harmful radiation would have receded long before reaching the Western shores of the US.

Yes we can was a noble and powerful mantra which secured for Barack Obama the leadership of the free world. Those than can, do. It is time he started doing.

HonestChieffan

03-18-2011, 08:57 AM

Interesting how the rest of the world sees him at this point.

Similar position taken by Washington Times today:

EDITORIAL: Obama couldn’t care less
The president parties while the world burns

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES-

If the world is in crisis, you wouldn’t know it by watching President Obama’s spring break. Between golf, basketball and the president’s upcoming trip to Rio de Janeiro, the White House is projecting a disinterested aura of business as usual. For this administration, “tuned-out” is the new normal.

The Mideast crisis is continuing, and Hillary Rodham Clinton has been the one taking the 3 a.m. phone calls. The secretary of state has been dealing with political reform in Egypt, a military crackdown in Bahrain and the continuing civil war in Libya. However, she is hampered by a chief executive who can’t make up his mind which course of action would best secure his place in history. It’s no wonder she took the opportunity to tell CNN she had no interest in continuing in the job in a theoretical Obama second term.

For the president’s part, he did manage to squeeze in a phone call to the kings of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to express his “deep concern over the violence in Bahrain” and stress “the importance of a political process as the only way to peacefully address the legitimate grievances of Bahrainis.” After this exercise in talking-point leadership, Bahrain’s crackdown continued apace. Mr. Obama’s views simply don’t matter to a world that views him as weak.

The news from Japan grows direr as the nuclear crisis intensifies. The Obama administration has shown considerably less interest in responding to this disaster - actually three disasters: earthquake, tsunami and potential nuclear meltdown - than it did to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. This is strange given the possibility for a monumental nuclear catastrophe and destabilizing the world’s third-largest economy, which also happens to be one of America’s best friends. A radioactive plume is set to hit the U.S. West Coast on Friday, and on Thursday President Obama said - twice - that “we do not expect harmful levels of radition to reach the U.S.”Either way, it certainly won’t pose a threat to the president, who by this weekend will be safe with his family on Brazil’s beaches.

Congress continued to debate a stopgap federal budget during the week, and on Tuesday the national debt scored a one-day $72 billion jump. Given the critical importance of the debate, it would be reasonable to expect Mr. Obama to be working hard to find a way out of the fiscal mess he largely created. The president, predictably, was nowhere to be found. Sen. Joe Manchin, West Virginia Democrat, scored the president for his “failure to lead” on the budget issue, and Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, said the president was “absent from this debate.” Vice President Joe Biden, who was supposed to be representing the White House in the congressional budget wrangle, instead took a trip to Russia.

None of this is meant to suggest Mr. Obama hasn’t been productive. He laughed it up at the Gridiron Club dinner, took a stand against schoolyard bullying and spoke on the radio about Women’s History Month. Over the weekend, he played his 61st round of golf as president and finalized his March Madness bracket picks, predictably avoiding controversy by choosing the four top seeds for the Final Four. On Monday, he attended a gathering of potential big-money donors at the St. Regis hotel that Democratic Party officials insisted was not a fundraiser. Sure, it was not a fundraiser; and the White House isn’t coming across as disconnected, weak, passive and paralyzed either.

News I've been seeing says Clinton is fed up with Obama's lack of leadership. She must get beat-up by world leaders over this issue with every trip she makes.

orange

03-18-2011, 09:38 AM

TRIPOLI, March 18 (Reuters) - Libya declared a ceasefire in the country to protect civilians and comply with a United Nations resolution passed overnight, Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa said on Friday.

"We decided on an immediate ceasefire and on an immediate stop to all military operations," he told reporters.

"(Libya) takes great interest in protecting civilians," he said, adding that the country would also protect all foreigners and foreign assets in Libya.

(Reporting by Maria Golovnina and Michael Georgy)

RaiderH8r

03-18-2011, 09:41 AM

Hillary's going to bail because President "Present" can't pull the trigger. If he had made the call on the no fly zone last week who knows how many lives would have been spared. People told Obammy he can't vote "present" as CIC but here he is, pussy footing around anyway. Ineffectual pansy.

orange

03-18-2011, 09:43 AM

Sydney Morning Herald

No-fly zone pays off for Obama with surge of support
Simon Mann HERALD CORRESPONDENT
March 19, 2011

WASHINGTON: As Barack Obama and the leaders of France and Britain decide their next move to curb Muammar Gadaffi's armed assault on Libya's rebels, American opinion has started swinging behind the US President over his handling of the crisis.

Criticised initially by political foes - and some friends - as being indecisive and unwilling to lead world action, Mr Obama appeared to have been energised by the backing of Arab nations, as well as the increasingly desperate plight of the rebels.

Critically, a United Nations Security Council resolution on Thursday approving a no-fly zone over Libya gave the allies greater licence to establish the zone than simply a mandate for clearing Libya's air space, a factor that was likely to sway even the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, who had expressed little enthusiasm for the exercise.

Mr Obama's reluctance was partly founded on US experiences in Iraq and the Balkans, where no-fly zones had failed ultimately to prevent the slaughter of innocents on the ground.

But Mr Obama had been treading a fine line, too, conscious that there was no appetite among Americans for a new war on top of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, least of all one in a third Muslim country, and fearful of pushing an already over-stretched military.

And amid the groundswell democratic movements that have swept the Middle East, Washington has sought to remain at arm's length, lest it be accused of meddling. Countering those fears, however, were imputations of US impotence, a prospect that was alarming hawks on Capitol Hill.

But late yesterday two Obama allies, Democrat John Kerry and Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman, along with Republican John McCain, who had been advocating military action, responded positively to the UN resolution, which allows for "all necessary measures" to protect Libya's civilians.

The three senators called the action "an important step on behalf of the people of Libya", despite the risks that it could draw the US and other nations into entrenched conflict.

"With Gaddafi's forces moving towards Benghazi, we must immediately work with our friends in the Arab League and in NATO to enforce this resolution and turn the tide before it is too late," they said in a statement.

Senator Kerry expressed frustration at the length of time it had taken to win Security Council backing for the measure.

"I don't like that we've lost this time," he said. "It's compacted the choices, diminished the options. And it's changed the state of play somewhat."

Senator Lieberman said he was grateful the White House had become "very proactive".

"No. 1, the US is back in the leadership again, and that includes at the UN," he said. "I'm sorry it took this long for the United Nations and the world community to get as active as they seem to be today, but I don't think it's too late."

He repeated his call to arm rebels as part of the allies' military prescription for defeating the Gaddafi regime, although the administration has resisted such calls previously, claiming it was unsure exactly who opposition groups were representing.

Imposing the no-fly zone promises to be a hugely complex task, lack of detail for which was reason enough for Russia and China to abstain from Thursday's Security Council vote.

But the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said: "This council moved with remarkable speed in response to the great urgency of the situation on the ground. And that necessitated doing so without all of the questions that some might have asked, immediately answered.

"We and others were very clear in outlining our intentions and expectations. Members of the council heard that and took their decisions accordingly."

TRIPOLI, March 18 (Reuters) - Libya declared a ceasefire in the country to protect civilians and comply with a United Nations resolution passed overnight, Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa said on Friday.

"We decided on an immediate ceasefire and on an immediate stop to all military operations," he told reporters.

"(Libya) takes great interest in protecting civilians," he said, adding that the country would also protect all foreigners and foreign assets in Libya.

(Reporting by Maria Golovnina and Michael Georgy)

You're right Orange...that was all Obama leadership there.

RaiderH8r

03-18-2011, 09:51 AM

You're right Orange...that was all Obama leadership there.

Like I said, Libya's immediate capitulation begs the question; Why did BarryO continue to wait? I mean, it's not like a quick phone call to our UN rep could have interfered that much with his round of golf.

He continues to try to vote present and that's not how the job works. To borrow from the timeless wisdom of Mr. Miyagi:

Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later *squish* get squish just like grape. Here, karate, same thing. Either you karate do "yes" or karate do "no." You karate do "guess so," *squish* just like grape. Understand?

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 09:53 AM

I'm going on record as saying if the Dems run Hillary instead of this idiot, and the R's run some Rino POS, I'll vote for Hillary.

Sannyasi

03-18-2011, 09:53 AM

Hillary's going to bail because President "Present" can't pull the trigger. If he had made the call on the no fly zone last week who knows how many lives would have been spared. People told Obammy he can't vote "present" as CIC but here he is, pussy footing around anyway. Ineffectual pansy.

If Hillary leaves because Obama avoided getting us involved in a third war, then good riddance. This difference is one of the reasons why Obama was elected President and she wasn't.

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 09:55 AM

If Hillary leaves because Obama avoided getting us involved in a third war, then good riddance. This difference is one of the reasons why Obama was elected President and she wasn't.

ROFL

Obama stole Michigan, Florida and Texas from her. He's a corrupt fraud and the media promoted his evil ass.

With the U.N. Security Council locked in negotiations over the terms of a no-fly zone over Libya, the Obama administration is seeking greater U.N. authority to confront Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces by land, air, and sea, while insisting on a central role for Arab governments in carrying out any possible military action.

While it remained unclear whether the U.S. or other governments are making plans to unleash military force against Qaddafi's government, the move marked a serious escalation in the United States' position toward intervention.

"We are interested in a broad range of action which will protect civilians and halt the killings," said Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "We are discussing very seriously and leading efforts in the council around a range of actions which we believe could be effective in protecting civilians, including a no-fly zone." But she said the council needs to be "prepared to contemplate steps that include, but go beyond a no-fly zone."

On Tuesday, Lebanon, Britain, and France introduced a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that would grant sweeping authority to the international community to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and use "all necessary measures," including military force, to protect civilians and grant access for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, according to a confidential draft of the resolution obtained by Turtle Bay.

But the United States introduced an amendment this afternoon that would broaden the scope for military action by authorizing states to halt "attacks by air, land and sea forces under the control of the Qaddafi regime," according to a copy of the confidential paper obtained by Turtle

The U.S. also introduced another amendment that highlights the importance of Arab participation in any potential military operations. The amendment "recognizes the important role of the Arab League in the region … and requests the member states of the Arab League to cooperate with other member states in the implementation" of the resolution. The United States also sought to include language that would require, rather than call upon states, to assist in implementing the resolution's measures, "including any necessary over-flight approvals."

The U.S. diplomatic initiative in New York came as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressed the Security Council to reach agreement on a new resolution. "We hope that there will be a resolution of the discussions and a decision made very soon in order to enable us to protect innocent lives in Libya," Clinton told the BBC today. "It has to be international and authorized. And then we have to be very clear about what Arab leadership and participation will be."

Libya's renegade deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Ibrahim Dabbashi, meanwhile, sought to prod the council to move swiftly to adopt the resolution, saying the 15-nation council needed to decide within 10 hours to avoid the large-scale killing of civilians.

Dabbashi claimed Qaddafi's forces were preparing offensives against the eastern town of Ajdabiya and an eastern cluster of mountain villages -- Jado, Yafran, and Nalout. "We think that Colonel Qaddafi today has lost his mind," said Dabbashi. "We think that in the future and in the coming hours we will see a real genocide.

"The Libyan people is looking to the Security Council to adopt a resolution as soon as possible and to authorize airstrikes on the forces of Colonel Qaddafi, especially those forces which have a clear intention which is to destroy villages" in eastern and western Libya.

The Russian government, meanwhile, introduced a provision into the U.N. draft resolution under negotiation that would demand government and rebel forces implement an immediate cease-fire. If the cease-fire doesn't hold, Russia would then be willing to "consider urgently and as appropriate the necessary measures," including a no-fly zone, "to ensure such a ceasefire and promote a lasting stabilization of the situation" in Libya.

If Hillary leaves because Obama avoided getting us involved in a third war, then good riddance. This difference is one of the reasons why Obama was elected President and she wasn't.

Hey, I'm completely against us going to war in Libya as well.

However, Obama's leadership style is waiting to see what the rest of the world is thinking and then just going along with what's more popular. Sometimes being a leader means standing up for what you believe, even if it's unpopular.

UN action is prudent in this situation to save civilian lives. But it should be a multi-nation action that is entered into by all the partners. The US should have been pushing for this immediately. It is possible to lead without pulling a George W. Bush.

orange

03-18-2011, 10:00 AM

The new "Obama golfer" meme from the RNC is going to go over much worse than the "Obama Socialist" one. That one at least had a good picture.

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 10:00 AM

However, Obama's leadership style is waiting to see what the rest of the world is thinking and then just going along with what's more popular. Sometimes being a leader means standing up for what you believe, even if it's unpopular.

Obama is always front and center when it comes to gun confiscation or promoting infanticide. Everything else he's "present".

dirk digler

03-18-2011, 10:18 AM

I don't see anything wrong with Obama's way of doing things and there is a million ways to skin a cat. And let's face it his way has worked for the most part.

I think it is great they got a no-fly zone passed at the UN without us having to do anything or taking the lead. We are already pulling the heavy load in both Iraq and Afghanistan there is no reason to add another

Also from what I am told we are broke so we really can't afford it.

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 10:19 AM

I don't see anything wrong with Obama's way of doing things and there is a million ways to skin a cat. And let's face it his way has worked for the most part.

I think it is great they got a no-fly zone passed at the UN without us having to do anything or taking the lead. We are already pulling the heavy load in both Iraq and Afghanistan there is no reason to add another

Also from what I am told we are broke so we really can't afford it.

Why can't we just continue to stay out of it?

patteeu

03-18-2011, 10:19 AM

Oh, look. orange found a media report that is sympathetic to the Obama administration. All is well with the world again.

patteeu

03-18-2011, 10:21 AM

I don't see anything wrong with Obama's way of doing things and there is a million ways to skin a cat. And let's face it his way has worked for the most part.

I think it is great they got a no-fly zone passed at the UN without us having to do anything or taking the lead. We are already pulling the heavy load in both Iraq and Afghanistan there is no reason to add another

Also from what I am told we are broke so we really can't afford it.

How do you know it's great?

mikey23545

03-18-2011, 10:22 AM

Yeah, the tens of thousands who died while he took a few weeks of playing golf to make up his mind to enforce a no fly zone are just a bunch of whiners.

Hell, it may be time for another Nobel Peace Prize.

Come to think of it, he should get a place on the United Nations Human Rights Commission to replace Gaddafi.

dirk digler

03-18-2011, 10:23 AM

How do you know it's great?

Because we don't really have to do anything

orange

03-18-2011, 10:23 AM

Oh, look. orange found a media report that is sympathetic to the Obama administration. All is well with the world again.

Don't worry, there's still plenty of Murdoch and Moonie papers for your guys to quote. And of course WND, the new go-to source. ROFL

dirk digler

03-18-2011, 10:25 AM

Yeah, the tens of thousands who died while he took a few weeks of playing golf to make up his mind to enforce a no fly zone are just a bunch of whiners.

Hell, it may be time for another Nobel Peace Prize.

Where was the US in Darfur when hundreds of thousands of women and children were being murdered?

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 10:26 AM

Where was the US in Darfur when hundreds of thousands of women and children were being murdered?

Where is the US now in Darfur?

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 10:27 AM

Don't worry, there's still plenty of Murdoch and Moonie papers for your guys to quote. And of course WND, the new go-to source. ROFL

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obamao_Swim_Boat_225.jpg

patteeu

03-18-2011, 10:27 AM

Because we don't really have to do anything

We didn't have to do anything before the UN authorization either, so I don't see your point.

Chief Henry

03-18-2011, 10:30 AM

Obama will love RIO.

orange

03-18-2011, 10:31 AM

We didn't have to do anything before the UN authorization either, so I don't see your point.

Santorum making a play for the Neocon/patteeu vote:

Santorum said the United States should have moved unilaterally to impose and enforce the no-fly zone, and criticized what he described as President Obama's hesitancy to act.

"If they want us to be removed from the global stage and simply be the military for the United Nations, you can stay with Barack Obama for another few years," Santorum said, before also criticizing the president's recent Middle East policy.

http://www.timesleader.com/news/ap?articleID=6729772

Sends a thrill up your leg, doesn't it?

dirk digler

03-18-2011, 10:32 AM

Where is the US now in Darfur?

The same as it has been...nowhere

patteeu

03-18-2011, 10:33 AM

Santorum making a play for the Neocon/patteeu vote:

Santorum said the United States should have moved unilaterally to impose and enforce the no-fly zone, and criticized what he described as President Obama's hesitancy to act.

"If they want us to be removed from the global stage and simply be the military for the United Nations, you can stay with Barack Obama for another few years," Santorum said, before also criticizing the president's recent Middle East policy.

http://www.timesleader.com/news/ap?articleID=6729772

Sends a thrill up your leg, doesn't it?

I think Santorum is right when he suggests that we shouldn't be subservient to the UN. I don't know if I agree with his prescription for the current situation though.

RaiderH8r

03-18-2011, 10:34 AM

Santorum making a play for the Neocon/patteeu vote:

Santorum said the United States should have moved unilaterally to impose and enforce the no-fly zone, and criticized what he described as President Obama's hesitancy to act.

"If they want us to be removed from the global stage and simply be the military for the United Nations, you can stay with Barack Obama for another few years," Santorum said, before also criticizing the president's recent Middle East policy.

Well why? Why aren't we involved? Why did we let Qadaffy Duck prevail, and then get involved? It doesn't make sense.

We had Sadaam Hussein under a no fly zone for ten years. Didn't compromise his authority one bit.

You want to be involved in this shit for ten years?

patteeu

03-18-2011, 10:37 AM

Well why? Why aren't we involved? Why did we let Qadaffy Duck prevail, and then get involved? It doesn't make sense.

We had Sadaam Hussein under a no fly zone for ten years. Didn't compromise his authority one bit.

You want to be involved in this shit for ten years?

Obama is doing a great thing here. That's all you need to know.

dirk digler

03-18-2011, 10:39 AM

Well why? Why aren't we involved? Why did we let Qadaffy Duck prevail, and then get involved? It doesn't make sense.

We had Sadaam Hussein under a no fly zone for ten years. Didn't compromise his authority one bit.

You want to be involved in this shit for ten years?

I don't want to be involved in this for ten years or 10 days. We already have enough on our plate without taking on enforcing a no-fly zone. Let Britain and the Frenchies do it for once.

Just remember we are broke so too bad for them.

AndChiefs

03-18-2011, 10:40 AM

I don't want to be involved in this for ten years or 10 days. We already have enough on our plate without taking on enforcing a no-fly zone. Let Britain and the Frenchies do it for once.

Just remember we are broke so too bad for them.

You really think Britain and France are going to be the ones enforcing this?

dirk digler

03-18-2011, 10:43 AM

You really think Britain and France are going to be the ones enforcing this?

According to this they are:

Britain and France, along with two unnamed Arab countries, were preparing to enforce the no-fly zone, said a European diplomat, adding that it could take “between 24 and 48 hours” for the operation to begin.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/03/17/2733732/no-fly-zone-authorized-for-libya.html#ixzz1GyDUZkpJ

patteeu

03-18-2011, 10:44 AM

So again, dirk, what's so great about this?

HonestChieffan

03-18-2011, 10:48 AM

If Obama takes credit for Libya backing down we should expect him to take credit for sun rises, sunsets, and all creatures great and small.

Chief Henry

03-18-2011, 10:51 AM

Just remember we are broke so too bad for them.

History shows Kadaffy (smile) wilted like a limp dick when a few well placed bombs were sent up his ass....Now look at his toughness. He calls for a cease fire when our bombers are warming up. Seems to me when Obama said Kadaffy "must go" a few stratigically placed bombs would have prevented all the blood shed the last 3-4 weeks in Libya.

Known kadaffys history, all we would have had to have done is have Hillary send kadaffy an email with a picture of our bombers warming up and he would have wilted like the bully he really is.

RaiderH8r

03-18-2011, 10:51 AM

If Obama takes credit for Libya backing down we should expect him to take credit for sun rises, sunsets, and all creatures great and small.

He took credit for increased domestic oil production so he's got the audacity for such bullshit. The Audacity of Hoping Your Audience is too Stupid to Know Better. Obamanomics.

Sannyasi

03-18-2011, 10:53 AM

The fact that Robert Gates wasn't enthusiastic about the idea of trying to enforce a no-fly zone means more to me than anything any commentator could say. If France and Britain want to take a crack at this one, then we should be more than happy to let them. Let NATO pull some of its own weight.

Chief Henry

03-18-2011, 10:56 AM

If Obama takes credit for Libya backing down we should expect him to take credit for sun rises, sunsets, and all creatures great and small.

The liberal MSM will give him the credit...Orange is proving that and the libs will also agree. That template is already in motion.

orange

03-18-2011, 10:59 AM

The liberal MSM will give him the credit...Orange is proving that and the libs will also agree. That template is already in motion.

The MSM maybe, but not journalistic powerhouses like the Daily Express.

On Tuesday, Lebanon, Britain, and France introduced a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that would grant sweeping authority to the international community to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and use "all necessary measures," including military force, to protect civilians and grant access for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, according to a confidential draft of the resolution obtained by Turtle Bay.

France has been the driving force behind the security council for two weeks. All this respect you are giving Obama you should be giving to France.

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 11:26 AM

France has been the driving force behind the security council for two weeks. All this respect you are giving Obama you should be giving to France.

Don't worry, when this thing goes to hell--- and it will--- the O-Bots will be giving France all the credit.

:thumb:

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 11:34 AM

If France and Britain want to take a crack at this one, then we should be more than happy to let them. Let NATO pull some of its own weight.

Yeah just like they did in the Balkans. :drool:

Just put it on the credit card, what the hell. It's not like we're in soul crushing debt or anything like that.

Chief Faithful

03-18-2011, 11:38 AM

He took credit for increased domestic oil production so he's got the audacity for such bullshit. The Audacity of Hoping Your Audience is too Stupid to Know Better. Obamanomics.

We have a President that took credit for job creation for a year while jobs were being lost at historically alarming rates. Obama is capable of taking credit for anything at anytime real or fiction. Right now Obama is taking credit for the French President and his handling of Libyan response from the Security Council.

Chief Faithful

03-18-2011, 11:39 AM

Don't worry, when this thing goes to hell--- and it will--- the O-Bots will be giving France all the credit.

:thumb:

LMAO

At the same time they will praise Obama for his wisdom to do nothing.

patteeu

03-18-2011, 11:41 AM

Before this bum took office, I never thought I'd wish that Hillary was president. It turns out that he really is a miracle worker.

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 11:42 AM

Before this bum took office, I never thought I'd wish that Hillary was president. It turns out that he really is a miracle worker.

Me too. I've learned alot in the past two years. Hillary is a corrupt leftist, but she's also a pragmatist.

This country would not be in the state of economic chaos it is right now if Obama didn't rig the primaries.

go bo

03-18-2011, 11:51 AM

I'm going on record as saying if the Dems run Hillary instead of this idiot, and the R's run some Rino POS, I'll vote for Hillary.but but but...

hillary is a marxist...

Chief Faithful

03-18-2011, 11:53 AM

Where was the US in Darfur when hundreds of thousands of women and children were being murdered?

Where is the oil or US interest in Darfur?

RaiderH8r

03-18-2011, 11:53 AM

but but but...

hillary is a marxist...

But at least she's not a fuckabout, impotent failure.

patteeu

03-18-2011, 11:54 AM

but but but...

hillary is a marxist...

LOL, I didn't even see Mad Crapper's pro Hillary post before I posted my own. It just goes to show that that guy has a pretty level head on his shoulders. :thumb:

go bo

03-18-2011, 11:58 AM

According to this they are:the arab nations are qatar and uae, according to al jazeera...

go bo

03-18-2011, 12:00 PM

But at least she's not a fuckabout, impotent failure.but but but...

he's not impotent...

he has children and according to shtsprayer he is fucking the country big time...

go bo

03-18-2011, 12:01 PM

LOL, I didn't even see Mad Crapper's pro Hillary post before I posted my own. It just goes to show that that guy has a pretty level head on his shoulders. :thumb:pro hillary = level head?

you guys are all losing your minds...

Amnorix

03-18-2011, 12:01 PM

Me too. I've learned alot in the past two years. Hillary is a corrupt leftist, but she's also a pragmatist.

This country would not be in the state of economic chaos it is right now if Obama didn't rig the primaries.

:rolleyes:

RaiderH8r

03-18-2011, 12:02 PM

but but but...

he's not impotent...

he has children and according to shtsprayer he is ****ing the country big time...

Hillary's definitely got bigger balls than the Obammy and Viagra has done wonders for erectile disfunction. Unfortunately for Barry it does nothing for testicular growth or spinal fortitude.

Amnorix

03-18-2011, 12:03 PM

I thought we didn't give a crap what the rest of the world thought about us or what we did or how we did it? I seem to remember hearing that pretty frequently back when that other guy was President. I won't say his name because it seems to upset many on the right when such "ancient history" comes up (even though Carter should be involved in every political discussion possible).

RaiderH8r

03-18-2011, 12:05 PM

I thought we didn't give a crap what the rest of the world thought about us or what we did or how we did it? I seem to remember hearing that pretty frequently back when that other guy was President. I won't say his name because it seems to upset many on the right when such "ancient history" comes up (even though Carter should be involved in every political discussion possible).

I care only insofar as the rest of the world recognizes Americans have the balls to stand in defense of themselves and their allies. Other than that the rest of the world can blow. Obammy is a paper tiger twat who doesn't have the stones to stake his own claim to jack shit. You can't respect somebody like that. I hate Hillary but at least she's got the grapes to take a stand.

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 12:06 PM

:rolleyes:

Whatever.

McCain had no shot and he sucked.

Hillary > Obama.

She wouldn't have rammed national healthcare down the nations throat. That's number one.

She wouldn't have pissed away trillions of dollars for nothing. Thats two.

Even her SC appointees, while being left of center, would at least be qualified.

Your boy is a failure. A complete disaster on this country.

go bo

03-18-2011, 12:07 PM

Hillary's definitely got bigger balls than the Obammy and Viagra has done wonders for erectile disfunction. Unfortunately for Barry it does nothing for testicular growth or spinal fortitude.LMAO LMAO LMAO

spinal fortitude?

i like it...

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 12:08 PM

I thought we didn't give a crap what the rest of the world thought about us or what we did or how we did it?

Nice injection of a non-point into the thread. Is integrity that far beyond your grasp?

go bo

03-18-2011, 12:10 PM

Whatever.

McCain had no shot and he sucked.

Hillary > Obama.

She wouldn't have rammed national healthcare down the nations throat. That's number one.

She wouldn't have pissed away trillions of dollars for nothing. Thats two.

Even her SC appointees, while being left of center, would at least be qualified.

Your boy is a failure. A complete disaster on this country.you mean like an earthquake, sunami and nuclear meltdowns?

BucEyedPea

03-18-2011, 12:10 PM

There's not much oil interest for us in Libya. That's more for other countries. We get very little from Libya. Not even one of our top suppliers.
There is NO need to use military on the side of the rebels for access to oil either. Whoever wins will sell it to whoever will pay for it. Or else they can't survive economically.
Thinking otherwise is showing no belief in free-market capitalism but a belief Hamiltonian mercantilism. There is NO doubt in my mind that western mercantilists just want another oil rich country to control for their own selfish advantage.

dirk digler

03-18-2011, 12:11 PM

So again, dirk, what's so great about this?

IMVHO I think it is great that for once we are taking a backseat and letting other countries do the heavy work. It is about time they did.

Chief Faithful

03-18-2011, 12:11 PM

I thought we didn't give a crap what the rest of the world thought about us or what we did or how we did it? I seem to remember hearing that pretty frequently back when that other guy was President. I won't say his name because it seems to upset many on the right when such "ancient history" comes up (even though Carter should be involved in every political discussion possible).

Same guys showing the same lack of leadership domestically. Besides, I thought it was a big deal to all the libs what the world thought of the US.

patteeu

03-18-2011, 12:13 PM

I thought we didn't give a crap what the rest of the world thought about us or what we did or how we did it? I seem to remember hearing that pretty frequently back when that other guy was President. I won't say his name because it seems to upset many on the right when such "ancient history" comes up (even though Carter should be involved in every political discussion possible).

It's always important that the rest of the world respect us in the sense that they don't want to mess with us or get cross with us. It's not so important that they like us. Obama seems to have lost the world on both counts.

Obama cancels speech in Rio square (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110318/pl_afp/uspoliticsdiplomacylatambrazil) after advance team detects signs of a counter protest:

BRASILIA (AFP) – President Barack Obama has cancelled a public speech he was scheduled to deliver Sunday in a Rio square during his upcoming visit to Brazil, the US embassy in Brasilia said.

The speech in the historic plaza known as Cinelandia, in the heart of Rio de Janeiro, "is cancelled," an embassy spokeswoman told AFP.

Obama instead will deliver remarks at Rio's Municipal Theatre, the official said, without specifying whether it would be open to the public or exclusively for invited guests.

No explanation for the change of venue was given by the embassy. Brazilian authorities have laid out a heavy security presence for Obama's two-day visit to South America's largest nation, and police in Rio had closed numerous streets from midnight Thursday in preparation.

On Thursday, members of an advance US security team were seen inspecting the surroundings of Cinelandia, where anti-US banners could be seen hanging from a road-side fence.

Some social and union groups have declared Obama a "persona non grata" and called for a protest, accusing him of a "bellicose policy of occupation" in foreign countries, and of attacking people "in the name of the war on terror."

Due to depart for Brazil later Friday on the first leg of a Latin American tour, Obama is then scheduled to be in Chile on Sunday before a final stop in El Salvador.

The trip comes at a troubling time as a nuclear nightmare stalks Japan and Arab and Western nations consider military action against Libyan strongman Moamer Kadhafi, who is threatening to crush a rebel uprising.

patteeu

03-18-2011, 12:13 PM

IMVHO I think it is great that for once we are taking a backseat and letting other countries do the heavy work. It is about time they did.

My question isn't about who is doing the work. My question is about whether or not the right work is being done. How do you know this is such a great thing to do?

go bo

03-18-2011, 12:14 PM

Nice injection of a non-point into the thread. Is integrity that far beyond your grasp?why is that a non-point?

it was an interesting point that on the one hand conservatives profess to be unconcerned with international perception of the u.s....

but on the other, they decry obama's lack of action and perception as a milquetoast by the international community...

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 12:15 PM

you mean like an earthquake, sunami and nuclear meltdowns?

What he's done, and continues to do to our economy is = to all of that.

He's a f'n communist. C'mon. Lets stop playing emporers new clothes with this idiot.

dirk digler

03-18-2011, 12:16 PM

My question isn't about who is doing the work. My question is about whether or not the right work is being done. How do you know this is such a great thing to do?

Are you suggesting instead of a no-fly zone there should be troops on the ground?

go bo

03-18-2011, 12:26 PM

What he's done, and continues to do to our economy is = to all of that.

He's a f'n communist. C'mon. Lets stop playing emporers new clothes with this idiot.he has clothes?

patteeu

03-18-2011, 12:26 PM

Are you suggesting instead of a no-fly zone there should be troops on the ground?

No, I'm asking you why enforcing a no-fly zone and potentially taking additional military actions against the Libyan government is a great thing. I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just trying to understand why you're so sure this is great.

go bo

03-18-2011, 12:30 PM

Are you suggesting instead of a no-fly zone there should be troops on the ground?no troops on the ground, but a few a10's would be nice...

if we wipe out his tanks and heavy artillery the rebels are well enough armed to make it a fair fight...

stopping the attacks by planes and helicopters will definitely help but it's the heavy weapons on the ground that are causing the most damage and driving the rebels back...

dirk digler

03-18-2011, 12:36 PM

No, I'm asking you why enforcing a no-fly zone and potentially taking additional military actions against the Libyan government is a great thing. I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just trying to understand why you're so sure this is great.

What I meant by a great thing is that the US is barely involved.

If it was me I would have done the same thing which is to stay out of it as best we can. I would support if we had great intel where Gaddafi was staying to drop a well placed bomb on his ass or maybe a Special Forces extraction.

go bo

03-18-2011, 12:37 PM

No, I'm asking you why enforcing a no-fly zone and potentially taking additional military actions against the Libyan government is a great thing. I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just trying to understand why you're so sure this is great.i don't know about dirk and i don't know about great, but i think the president has done it right with one exception...

getting the backing of the arab governments and the u.n. before committing to any military action was the right thing to do, otherwise we are in our third war...

it was also the right thing to do because we should support democracy movements anywhere in the world; after all, we are the beacon of freedom and democracy in the world...

waiting so long to get u.n. appoval after the arab league endorsed the no-fly zone was a huge mistake...

we should have taken a role similar to the french to openly demonstrate our resolve to be an ally of democracy in the arab world...

patteeu

03-18-2011, 12:41 PM

What I meant by a great thing is that the US is barely involved.

If it was me I would have done the same thing which is to stay out of it as best we can. I would support if we had great intel where Gaddafi was staying to drop a well placed bomb on his ass or maybe a Special Forces extraction.

We were barely involved before. Even moreso. But you seemed to think that this new turn of events was great so there must be more to it than that.

BucEyedPea

03-18-2011, 12:44 PM

What I meant by a great thing is that the US is barely involved.

I understand this costs billions to implement? How is this being barely involved?

Jaric

03-18-2011, 01:42 PM

I understand this costs billions to implement? How is this being barely involved?

What's another couple hundred billion here or there?

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 01:50 PM

So...

Who's idea was this? Doesn't congress have to approve of the US participating in a no fly zone? It's kind of odd that they are missing in all of this.

patteeu

03-18-2011, 01:57 PM

So...

Who's idea was this? Doesn't congress have to approve of the US participating in a no fly zone? It's kind of odd that they are missing in all of this.

Pfft, Congress? How can you think about Congress when Obama has just entered the room (or at least since he's just been dragged into the room)?

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 01:59 PM

Pfft, Congress? How can you think about Congress when Obama has just entered the room (or at least since he's just been dragged into the room)?

Are we declaring war on Libya? Serious question.

patteeu

03-18-2011, 02:03 PM

Are we declaring war on Libya? Serious question.

No. I have my doubts that Congress will even be consulted or asked to authorize this in any way.

The Mad Crapper

03-18-2011, 02:05 PM

No. I have my doubts that Congress will even be consulted or asked to authorize this in any way.

So this is all the Arab League's idea. We're using our military as mercenaries for Arabs, now.

Terrific.

banyon and orange

http://www.iaza.com/work/110319C/iaza12140296819100.jpg

orange

03-18-2011, 02:19 PM

No. I have my doubts that Congress will even be consulted or asked to authorize this in any way.

They already talked about it in the Senate, Lugar expressed objections. This is according to Washington Post yesterday, of course it hasn't actually happened until the Daily Express says so.

Today:

Obama meets with members of Congress on Libya
01:09 PM

President Obama is outlining the U.S. role in the global response to Libya to a congressional delegation, the White House announced.

The meeting comes a day after the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution authorizing possible military action to protect Libya's citizens.

The United States and its allies are discussing establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Moammar Gadhafi's government from bombing rebel forces.

Gadhafi's government responded to the U.N. resolution by declaring a cease-fire against Libyan rebels.

Some members of the bipartisan congressional delegation are here at the White House, while others are on a secure conference call.

They already talked about it in the Senate, Lugar expressed objections. This is according to Washington Post yesterday, of course it hasn't actually happened until the Daily Express says so.

Today:

You think there will be a vote to authorize the use of force?

orange

03-18-2011, 02:34 PM

You think there will be a vote to authorize the use of force?

I think probably so - they'll pass an open-ended resolution like the Iraq res., not an actual declaration of war. I haven't really heard of a lot of sympathy against it - even Lugar's objection was on the basis that Congress must authorize.

p.s. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told Congress it would take as much as a week to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.
:tinfoil:

Chief Henry

03-18-2011, 04:05 PM

I don't want to see troops on the ground, but pounding that dam mennace into submission with bombs works for me.

go bo

03-18-2011, 08:59 PM

So...

Who's idea was this? Doesn't congress have to approve of the US participating in a no fly zone? It's kind of odd that they are missing in all of this.senators from both parties have been pressing for a no-fly zone for awhile now...

and it's not the arab league's idea, it was brought up by the rebels, france and the u.k., then we got on the bandwagon on condition of arab approval and participation and u.n. authority and participation, both of which he now has...

go bo

03-18-2011, 09:01 PM

No. I have my doubts that Congress will even be consulted or asked to authorize this in any way.wouldn't the spending have to be authorized at some point?

go bo

03-18-2011, 09:05 PM

I don't want to see troops on the ground, but pounding that dam mennace into submission with bombs works for me.first we need to get the cia to train some rebels how to use laser aiming devices like our sf did in afghanistan...

patteeu

03-18-2011, 09:05 PM

wouldn't the spending have to be authorized at some point?

It depends on how extensive the operation becomes, I suppose.

HonestChieffan

03-19-2011, 08:56 AM

Obama says it wont be a long engagement, a couple days is all.

"Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough held a conference call with top Congressional staffers on Friday afternoon where he emphasized Obama’s “deep respect for Congress in all of these matters,” and gave a read out of the White House meeting. A recording of the call was provided to The Cable.

“The president expects the preponderance of our involvement to last a matter of days, not weeks,” McDonough said.

HonestChieffan

03-19-2011, 12:07 PM

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's meetings in Paris with the G8 foreign ministers on Monday left her European interlocutors with more questions than answers about the Obama administration's stance on intervention in Libya.

Inside the foreign ministers' meeting, a loud and contentious debate erupted about whether to move forward with stronger action to halt Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi's campaign against the Libyan rebels and the violence being perpetrated against civilians. Britain and France argued for immediate action while Germany and Russia opposed such a move, according to two European diplomats who were briefed on the meeting.

Clinton stayed out of the fray, repeating the administration's position that all options are on the table but not specifically endorsing any particular step. She also did not voice support for stronger action in the near term, such as a no-fly zone or military aid to the rebels, both diplomats said.

"The way the U.S. acted was to let the Germans and the Russians block everything, which announced for us an alignment with the Germans as far as we are concerned," one of the diplomats told The Cable.

Clinton's unwillingness to commit the United States to a specific position led many in the room to wonder exactly where the administration stood on the situation in Libya.

"Frankly we are just completely puzzled," the diplomat said. "We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States."

On the same day, Clinton had a short meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in which Sarkozy pressed Clinton to come out more forcefully in favor of action in Libya. She declined Sarkozy's request, according to a government source familiar with the meeting.

Sarkozy told Clinton that "we need action now" and she responded to him, "there are difficulties," the source said, explaining that Clinton was referring to China and Russia's opposition to intervention at the United Nations. Sarkozy replied that the United States should at least try to overcome the difficulties by leading a strong push at the U.N., but Clinton simply repeated, "There are difficulties."

One diplomat, who supports stronger action in Libya, contended that the United States' lack of clarity on this issue is only strengthening those who oppose action.

"The risk we run is to look weak because we've asked him to leave and we aren't taking any action to support our rhetoric and that has consequences on the ground and in the region," said the European diplomat.

British and French frustration with the lack of international will to intervene in Libya is growing. British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday that Arab sentiment was, "if you don't show your support for the Libyan people and for democracy at this time, you are saying you will intervene only when it's about your security, but you won't help when it's about our democracy."

France sent letters on Wednesday to all the members of the U.N. Security Council, which is discussing a Lebanon-sponsored resolution to implement a no-fly zone, calling on them to support the resolution, as has been requested by the Arab League.

"Together, we can save the martyred people of Libya. It is now a matter of days, if not hours. The worst would be that the appeal of the League of the Arab States and the Security Council decisions be overruled by the force of arms," the letter stated.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe wrote on his blog, "It is not enough to proclaim, as did almost all of the major democracies that ‘Qaddafi must go.' We must give ourselves the means to effectively assist those who took up arms against his dictatorship."

In an interview with the BBC on Wednesday in Cairo, Clinton pointed to the U.N. Security Council as the proper venue for any decision to be made and she pushed back at the contention by the British and the French that the U.S. was dragging its feet.

"I don't think that is fair. I think, based on my conversations in Paris with the G-8 ministers, which, of course, included those two countries, I think we all agree that given the Arab League statement, it was time to move to the Security Council to see what was possible," Clinton said. I don't want to prejudge it because countries are still very concerned about it. And I know how anxious the British and the French and the Lebanese are, and they have taken a big step in presenting something. But we want to get something that will do what needs to be done and can be passed."

"It won't do us any good to consult, negotiate, and then have something vetoed or not have enough votes to pass it," Clinton added.

Clinton met with Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril in Paris as well, but declined to make any promises on specific actions to support the Libyan opposition.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA) also doubled down on his call for a no-fly zone over Libya in a speech on Wednesday at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"The international community cannot simply watch from the sidelines as this quest for democracy is met with violence," he said. "The Arab League's call for a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya is an unprecedented signal that the old rules of impunity for autocratic leaders no longer stand... The world needs to respond immediately to avert a humanitarian disaster."

And Clinton's former top aide Anne-Marie Slaughter accused the Obama administration of prioritizing oil over the human rights of the people of Libya.

"U.S. is defining ‘vital strategic interest' in terms of oil and geography, not universal values. Wrong call that will come back to haunt us," she wrote on Wednesday on her Twitter page.